Rakesh Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 706 Patna

Patna High Court

Rakesh Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar on 13 March, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11185 of 2025
     ======================================================
     Rakesh Ranjan S/o Ramprit Chourasia, R/o Vill- Dhane Goraul, Post and P.S-
     Goraul, Dist- Vaishali, presently residing at Chhoti Marai, Ward No. 28, Post-
     Hajipur, P.S- Hajipur Town, Dist- Vaishali.
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                         Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of
     Bihar, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4.   The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt.
     of Bihar, Patna.
5.   The Secretary, Road Construction Department,                 Govt.   of    Bihar,
     Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
6.   The Deputy Secretary (Management Cell), Road Construction Department,
     Govt. of Bihar, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7.   The Under Secretary (Management Cell), Road Construction Department,
     Govt. of Bihar, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr.Siyaram Pandey, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Mujatbuddin Haque, GP-12
                                    Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP-12
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                 ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 13-03-2026
                Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

      learned counsel appearing for the State.

                    2. The present writ petition has been filed for

      quashing the Order No. 1/Misc-55-2017 contained in Memo No.

      1/Misc-55-2017-3627(S) dated 08.05.2025 issued by the Under
 Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026
                                           2/10




         Secretary (Management Cell), Road Construction Department,

         Government of Bihar, Patna (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition),

         whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The

         petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a direction to the

         respondents to appoint/reinstate him on the post of Legal

         Expert, whose selection and appointment were made in light of

         Notification No. 1/Misc-55-2017-1697(S) dated 28.02.2020

         issued by the Deputy Secretary (Management Cell), Road

         Construction       Department,        Government      of     Bihar,   Patna

         (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition).

                     3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         petitioner was appointed on the post of Legal Expert on

         09.03.2020

under the Road Construction Department,

Government of Bihar, in light of Sankalp No. 2401 dated

18.07.2007 issued by the General Administration Department,

Government of Bihar, and in compliance with departmental

Notification No. 7946(S) dated 11.10.2019, on contractual basis

for a period of one year. The said contractual period was

extended from time to time against a duly sanctioned and vacant

post.

4. Learned counsel further submits that two posts of

Legal Expert were sanctioned by the department, which is Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

evident from Memo No. 7946(S) dated 11.10.2018 issued by the

Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Thereafter, the department published an advertisement for

selection and appointment on the post of Legal Expert on full-

time contractual basis by following the reservation policy and

due process of law. The petitioner applied for the said post and

his name was shortlisted for interview. Subsequently, the

petitioner was finally selected under the reserved category and

an appointment letter was issued in his favour by the Deputy

Secretary (Management Cell), Road Construction Department,

Government of Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 1697(S) dated

28.02.2020. After such appointment, the petitioner joined and

continued to discharge his duties diligently.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the

department issued a letter bearing Memo No. 3627(S) dated

08.05.2025 whereby the contractual extension granted to the

petitioner was rescinded with immediate effect without any

prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Being

aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted

representations dated 09.05.2025 before the Additional Chief

Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of

Bihar, Patna, and thereafter on 04.06.2025 before the Chief Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna in light of Memo No.

1003 dated 22.01.2021 issued by the General Administration

Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, which provides for an

appellate remedy. However, till date no decision has been taken

on the said representations. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the petitioner was appointed following due

process of law and had been discharging his duties for about

five years. It is further submitted that although the appointment

was contractual in nature, the respondent authorities are now

intending to appoint another person on the same post by issuing

a fresh advertisement on contractual basis, which is contrary to

the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Manish Gupta and Another vs. President, Jan

Bhagidari Samiti and Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of

2022, wherein in paragraph-12 it has been observed that: "It is

a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be

replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced

only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by

following the prescribed regular procedure." Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

7. Learned counsel further submits that by way of

supplementary affidavit the joining letter of the petitioner has

been brought on record, which also contains the terms of the

contractual agreement. Clause-9 of the said agreement

specifically provides that the contract may be terminated by

either side by giving one month's notice or payment of one

month's contractual remuneration.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied

upon a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court

in CWJC No. 19405 of 2024 (Pawan Kumar vs. The State of

Bihar and Others), wherein the matter relating to appointment

on the post of Data Entry Operator was disposed of in favour of

the employee.

9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

submits that the impugned letter (Annexure-P/6), by which the

contractual engagement of the petitioner as Legal Expert ended.

The said letter has been issued strictly in accordance with law. It

is submitted that the petitioner was engaged purely on

contractual basis for a period of one year, which was subject to

extension from time to time. Learned counsel further submits

that the appointment letter (Annexure-P/4) clearly stipulates that

the contractual engagement may be terminated at any time Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

without any prior notice, and therefore no illegality has been

committed by the department.

10. Learned counsel further submits that his contract

was extended in the interest of work, time to time and contract

has been cancelled after five years. Counsel submits that service

condition has also been issued vide Memo No. 1697(s) dated

28.02.2020 which is (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition). In the

light of the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition,

the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

11. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the

records, particularly Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition issued

vide Memo No. 1697(S) dated 28.02.2020, which is most

relevant for the present controversy, it transpires to this Court

that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Legal

Expert was purely contractual in nature. The initial engagement

was for a period of one year, which was extendable from time to

time depending upon the requirement of the department. The

terms and conditions of the said contract, as contained in the

appointment letter, are as follows:--

fcgkj ljdkj iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx vkns"k vf/klqpuk la[;k&1@fofo/k&55@2017 foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k&7946¼,l½ fnukad 11-10-2019 ds }kjk iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk esa lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu gsrq Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

02¼nks½ fof/k fo"ks'kK dk in Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSA mDr in ij fu;kstu gsrq Online izkIr vkosnu i= ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu gsrq lk{kkRdkj lfefr }kjk fy, x, varZoh{kk ,oa es/kk lwph ds vk/kkj ij foHkkxh; fu;qfDr lfefr ds vuq"kalk ds vkyksd esa Jh jkds"k jatu] firk&jke izhr pkSjfl;k] eks0&NksVh ejbZ] okMZ la[;k&24] iksLV&gkthiqj] ftyk&oS"kkyh dks fof/k fo"ks'kK ds fjDr in ij lafonk ds vk/kkj ij ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls ,d o'kZ ds fy, fu;kstu fd;k tkrk gSA 2- ;g lafonk fu;kstu vLFkkbZ gS ftls fdlh Hkh le; fcuk lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrk gSA Hkfo'; esa lafonk fu;kstu ds vk/kkj ij LfkkbZ fu;kstu ds fy, fdlh izdkj dk nkok ekU; ugha gksxkA 3- lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr dehZ ljdkjh lsod ugha ekus tk;saxs vkSj ljdkjh lsod dks vuqekU; fdlh Hkh lqfo/kk ds os gdnkj ugha gksaxsA lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu ds ckn ljdkjh lsok esa fu;ferhdj.k dk mudk dksbZ Hkh nkok ugha cusxkA 4- lkekU; iz"kklu foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k&2401 fnukad 18-07-2007 esa fufgr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa vfHk;kstu funs"kky; esa vfHk;kstu inkf/kdkjh dk osru ds vk/kkj ij fof/k fo"ks'kK dk ekfld ikfjJfed :0 64]000@& ¼pkSlB gtkj½ fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fdlh izdkj dk jkf"k ns; ugha gksxkA muds tkfr izek.k i= lacaf/kr ftyk inkf/kdkjh ls lR;kiu ds mijkUr gh ikfjJfed dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 5- ;ksxnku ds le; vlSfud "kY; fpfdRld ls LokLF; izek.k&i= layXu djuk gksxkA 6- fu;qfDr i= fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls ,d i{k ds vanj vfuok;Z :i ls ;ksxnku djuk gksxk vU;Fkk lafonk fu;kstu lekIr dj fn;k tk;sxkA 7- ekfld ikfjJfed jkf"k dk ogu ekax la0&41 ds LFkkiuk ,oa izfrc) O;; ds v/khu eq[; "kh'kZ 3054&lM+d rFkk lsrq] mi eq[;

"kh'kZ&80&lkekU;] y?kq "kh'kZ&001&funs"ku rFkk iz"kklu] mi "kh'kZ&0001&funs"ku] foi= dksM&41&3054800010001] fo'k; "kh'kZ&0001- 28-02&lafonk lsok;sa vUrxZr fodyuh; gksxkA 8- lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr dehZ dks NqV~Vh dh vuqekU;rk ugha gksxhA mUgsa ljdkjh lsodksa dks vuqekU; vkdfLed vodk"k ek= vuqekU; gksxkA Ng ekgksa dh vof/k ds lafonk vk/kkfjr fu;kstu ds lanHkZ esa ljdkjh lsodksa dks vuqekU; okf'kZd vkdfLed vodk"kksa dh dh dqy la[;k ds vk/ks dh la[;k esa vkdfLed vodk"k vuqekU; gksxkA 9- vuqca/k lekfIr ds iwoZ ;fn iqufuZ;kstu ugha gksrk gS] rks oSlh fLFkfr esa fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks budk vuqca/k Lor% lekIr ekuk tk;sxk vkSj blds fy, vkns"k fuxZr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gksxkA 10- ;ksxnku ds fy, ;k=k HkRrk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA 11- lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr fd;s tkusokys dehZ dks layXu fofgr izi= esa ,djkjukek miyC/k djkuk vko";d gksxkA Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

g0@& ¼ccyw dqekj½ mi lfpo ¼iz0dks0½

12. It transpires to this Court that the document on the

basis of which the petitioner entered into service is Annexure-

P/4 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the said appointment, the

petitioner joined the post and, at the time of joining, an

agreement was executed between the parties. The terms and

conditions of the said agreement are as follows:--

ifjf"k'V &1 lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu gsrq ,djkjukek ;g ,djkjukek iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj] iVuk ,oa p;fur@fu;ksftr gksus okys Jh jkds"k jatu ds chp fuEufyf[kr "kRRkksZa ds lkFk dh tk ugha gS%& 1- ;g fu;kstu dsoy fof/k fo"ks'kK ¼in dk uke½ ds fy, fd;k tk;sxkA 2- ;g fu;kstu lafonk ds vk/kkj ij dsoy 01 ¼,d½ lky ds fy, fd;k tk;sxk ysfdu fo"ks'k ifjfLFkfr esa bldh vof/k vxys 01 ¼,d½ lky rd c<+k;h tk ldsxhA 3- lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr Jh jkds"k jatu dks 64000@:0 izfrekg ,deq"r jkf"k ikfjJfed ds :i esa ns; gksxk ,oa blds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ jkf"k ;k HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA 4- bl rjg ds fu;ksftr O;fDr dks bl fu;kstu ds vk/kkj ij ljdkjh lsodksa dks ns; dksbZ vU; lqfo/kk vuqekU; ugha gksxhA 5- bl vk/kkj ij Hkfo'; esa fu;fer fu;qfDr vFkok vU;Fkk dksbZ nkok vuqekU; ugha gksxkA 6- lafonk ij fu;ksftr O;fDr dh lsok LFkkukUrj.kuh; ugha gksxhA 7- lafonk ij fu;kstu ds mijkar fu;ksftr LFkku gsrq vius bPNkuqlkj vkosnd nks fodYi ns ldrs gSa ijUrq fdlh Hkh Lfkku ij fu;kstu dk vf/kdkj foHkkx ds ikl lqjf{kr jgsxkA Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

8- bl izdkj dk fu;kstu lafonk vof/k ¼daVªsDV ihfj;M½ lekfIr ds iwoZ mHk; i{kksa }kjk ,d ekg dh iwoZ lwpuk nsdj ;k ,d ekg dh lafonk jkf"k ,deq"r nsdj lekIr dh tk ldsxhA 9- lafonk ij fu;kstu ds i"pkr~ nksuksa i{kksa dks ,djkjukek dh mijksDr "krsZa ekU; gksxhA fu;ksftr O;fDr mijksDr ,djkjukek ds fdlh Hkh "krZ dk mYya?ku djsaxs rks ,djkjukek Lor% lekIr le{kk tk;sxkA Rakesh Ranjan iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk fu;ksftr O;fDr 09-03-2020

13. Upon perusal of the terms of the advertisement,

it transpires that the employment of the petitioner was purely

temporary and contractual in nature and could be terminated at

any time. However, the appointment agreement contains a

specific stipulation that termination of the contract by either side

shall be preceded by one month's prior notice or payment of one

month's contractual remuneration in lieu thereof.

14. Since the appointment of the petitioner was

purely contractual in nature as Legal Expert, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the impugned action of the

respondents. However, one aspect requires consideration,

namely that prior to termination of the contract, one month's

notice was not given to the petitioner as required under the

terms of the agreement.

15. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid contractual

stipulation, the State is directed to make payment of one Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2025 dt.13-03-2026

month's contractual remuneration to the petitioner within a

period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy

of this order.

16. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioner in Manish Gupta (supra) and Pawan

Kumar (supra) are concerned, it appears that in those cases the

issue related to replacement of ad hoc employees. In the present

case, the petitioner was not an employee holding a regular or ad

hoc post but was engaged as a Legal Expert purely on

contractual basis. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view

that the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts of the

present case and do not advance the case of the petitioner.

17. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed

with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          16/03/2026
Transmission Date       NA